SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Geoff Altman who wrote (39244)12/3/2009 4:54:05 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
I could support a candidate like that.



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (39244)12/4/2009 8:46:42 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Hey, Geoff!

I SUPPORT some of those ideas.

For example the Flat Tax.

(Have supported it for DECADES now.)

But, your ability to write down some ideas for change *now* doesn't change the point that I made earlier --- that the specific video link you posted was rather LIGHT ON SPECIFIC DETAILS OR POLICY PROPOSALS.

'Cause, it was. It didn't actually have any as far as I could tell, (but the RHETORIC was stirring). That was the point I made.

One other small point though....

If you want to 'suspend the payroll tax' until 'things get better'... just what the heck do you think that will do to federal BORROWING and the DEFICIT?

Ain't you a'gin those things too?

(And, could you PLEASE define exactly how 'until things get better' is going to be MEASURED. Do you want to wait until job growth comes back, or until the rate of labor utilization rises to 'historic norms' or something like that? You might be waiting a decade or more you know... and the deficit in the meanwhile would have turned our country into the second coming of the Weimar Republic.)

But... Flat Tax? I've there probably longer then SI has been around!

And, 'lack of federal oversight' in derivative markets and such? I've strongly OPPOSED that for more then a decade --- ever since Dodd and Lieberman and a handful of others (Greenspan included) pushed it through!



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (39244)12/4/2009 1:01:29 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Obama's Other War
The president needs to rally the nation, not just the troops.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
DECEMBER 3, 2009, 7:46 P.M. ET.

President Obama missed a chance to win a war this week. Not the one in Afghanistan, but the one about Afghanistan with his party and the public. That political failure may yet undermine the real fighting.

What many Americans heard was the commander in chief promising an additional 30,000 troops for the battleground. Mr. Obama strongly and correctly linked U.S. security to the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What many Democrats saw was a man far from fully committed. Tuesday's speech came after months of public wavering. The troops were less than requested by the president's hand-picked general, Stanley McChrystal. The West Point words were heavy on justifications and an 18-month exit strategy.

For the antiwar left, and for Democrats who fear political fallout from Afghanistan, this hesitation offers hope the president may yet be beat into withdrawal. And so beat they will.

Mr. Obama missed the opportunity to rally public support and to invest the more responsible wing of his party in his Afghan surge—in the process granting himself cover to see his strategy through to the end. As missed opportunities go, this was big.

True, Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.) is complaining about the surge, and Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.) has again raised the specter of a "war tax." The press is busy reporting about the "fight" Mr. Obama will have to get funding for the troops. Yet this is no second-term President Bush, saddled with poor approval ratings, a hostile Congress, and a WMD problem. Democrats will give their new, popular president his troops. The Obeys and Murthas might rebel, but the majority of the party will, if reluctantly, accede. "They aren't going to damage their leader—not this early," says one Senate GOP aide, not with health care pending.

The White House knows it, which is why it felt free to proceed with a surge. Mr. Obama's mistake was not pressing his advantage. By offering an unequivocal commitment to Afghanistan success, he could have bound the weaker elements of his party to a bold position, and given himself more time. They couldn't so easily claim later they didn't know what they were doing.

As for the public, it is worried about Afghanistan but has not turned against it. Americans mentally link Afghanistan and 9/11 and understand the risks of terrorist playgrounds. This is precisely why Mr. Obama got away with his campaign-trail argument that Afghanistan was the "good war," versus the "bad" war in Iraq.

If the president had devoted a fraction of eloquence he has for health care to the cause of Afghanistan this week, he could have rallied a nation that fundamentally wants victory. He's also in the unique position to challenge the left. He might have reminded them that well before 9/11, Afghanistan was their cause, as they decried the Taliban's ruthless repression of women's rights in the late 1990s, and the destruction of the country's cultural heritage. This would have at least put the president on offense.

The "bipartisan" Mr. Obama also missed a golden opportunity with Republicans. Most of the GOP has so far continued to put national security ahead of politics—despite bitter memories of Democratic behavior on Iraq. (One Republican attendee to the White House's pre-briefing of the speech this week described the teeth-gritting experience of having Bush antagonist Sen. Pat Leahy lecture the group on the need for "bipartisan" surge support.) This was the president's chance to capitalize on GOP support for strong national security policy—support he's going to need when Democrats go wobbly.

Instead, Republicans sat through a speech full of gratuitous shots at the prior administration and at national-security tools the GOP also supports—such as Guantanamo Bay. "How hard is he going to make this for us?" fumed one GOP congressman. The president's reduced troop request and withdrawal timeline have meanwhile left easy openings for Republicans to later turn against him, if they choose to run from the war.

What Mr. Obama has in fact guaranteed is no reprieve from pressure to pull out. It will continue this year, and grow.

This surge could take years to show results. Yet in 18 months Democrats will have been through—and likely lost seats in—a midterm election. Like Republicans in 2006, the temptation will be to blame that defeat not on their own controversial domestic governance, but on the war. Mr. Obama, diffident and apologetic, laboring under a self-imposed deadline, has left himself few tools with which to fight back.

This window to rally public and congressional support hasn't shut. Mr. Obama, no stranger to cameras, could still inspire the nation, and make clear to his party his commitment to Afghan success. It's a war that needs winning now.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (39244)12/5/2009 3:04:35 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Public Option Campus Revolt
The federal student-loan takeover gets booed in academia.

DECEMBER 5, 2009.

There's encouraging news on that other Washington effort to force Americans into a government-run system. The White House plan to drive private lenders out of the market for student loans is igniting a backlash on campus and Capitol Hill.

The typical tale of a free-speech controversy on campus involves administrators landing on some poor undergrad who violates political correctness. But in this story the administrators have been afraid to speak as the Department of Education pressured them to drop private lenders and embrace the department's own Direct Lending (DL) program. The pending bill, which has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, would ban private lenders from making federally guaranteed loans after July 1, 2010.

Congress has already enacted regulations in recent years to discourage making loans without a federal guarantee. And many lenders have quit the business. Now the White House and Democrats like California Rep. George Miller want to go further and convert students from private loans largely backed by the taxpayer into government loans made and serviced by government and backed by the taxpayer. Think of this as a prelude to how Congress will rig the rules for any public option in health care.

The private lenders have been the most popular choice, while—big surprise—the government's program has a history of shoddy customer service. But before the bill has even come to the Senate floor, federal officials have been making unsolicited contacts to schools urging them to accept this "public option." In October, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter to schools nationwide offering to help them "in taking the necessary steps to ensure uninterrupted access to federal student loans by ensuring your institution is Direct Loan-ready for the 2010-2011 academic year."

OpinionJournal Related Stories:
The Quietest Trillion
Single Payer for Kids
.Schools got the message. The leader of a large university recently refused to discuss the issue with us on the record, fearful that the feds are taking names. Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.) has asked the Department of Education's inspector general to investigate efforts by officials to encourage outside groups to advocate for the ban on private lenders. He wants to know if department staff violated a federal law against lobbying with appropriated funds, among other possible offenses.

Several House Democrats wrote to Mr. Duncan this week questioning the "aggressive outreach" to schools on behalf of one option while Congress is still considering others. We seem to remember from our student days that the executive branch is supposed to enforce laws only after the legislature has written them. Over in the Senate, more than a dozen Democrats have criticized the Administration's plan, and Senator Bob Casey has offered an alternative that would allow private lenders to stay in business.

Meanwhile, faced with the prospect of a monopoly government-run loan provider, the tweed-jacket crowd is finding its voice. Mr. Duncan spoke this week at a conference for financial aid officers in Nashville, and he may be sorry that he agreed to take questions from the audience. To vigorous applause, several attendees questioned whether financing that's good enough for government work will be good enough for their students.

Ted Malone of the University of Alaska said that the department had already "created an impossible-to-administer program" for Pell Grants and therefore said it's "hard to trust that you're going to be looking out for our best interests" when forcing all colleges into the government-run lending system.

Another speaker talked about how hard the private firms work to serve students and said, "My partnership with my lenders is being taken away from me."

Sheila Nelson Hensley of Virginia's Bluefield College said, "I'm concerned that there's going to be a delay in us receiving our funds, which will ultimately affect our students and the cash flow of our institution."

When even such natural allies as college administrators are warning that Team Obama is moving too quickly and too far left, perhaps it's time to go back to school on this issue. Focusing on the needs of students and taxpayers—rather than an ideological conviction that government always knows and does best—would be a good place to start.

online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (39244)12/8/2009 11:22:22 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
EPA? Politics? Perish the Thought!
The EPA will declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant today.
DECEMBER 7, 2009, 1:55 P.M. ET.

By JOHN FUND
Talk about an accelerated change of climate. The Environmental Protection Agency will reportedly declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant today, setting the stage for extensive government regulations that will dramatically increase costs for business.

In a sense, the Obama administration is presenting an alternative Christmas present to the climate change summit that opens in Copenhagen today. The U.S. Senate failed to pass a cap-and-trade treaty in time for the summit, leaving the administration with nothing to offer beyond a presidential visit. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's unexpected but exquisitely timed announcement allows White House officials to save face and the president to be hailed as a hero in the Danish capital.

EPA's move comes shortly after its initiative was sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, a process that normally requires a bit of time. The sudden approval will strike many as particularly bizarre on the heels of a scandal calling into question the underlying science of climate change. Leaked emails from Britain's Climatic Research Unit have already prompted the head of the CRU unit to step down pending an investigation. The United Nations has opened a parallel probe. More disturbing is news that CRU destroyed raw data for its global surface temperature series. Equally serious are questions about how data was manipulated by the CRU's ad hoc computer programming.

But the political calendar and fear that any delay would further undermine the case for declaring carbon a pollutant are clearly driving the EPA's decision. And the Obama administration wonders why business is loath to create new jobs. Given the massive overhang of regulatory uncertainty and higher taxes, it's a wonder anyone is hiring at all today.

online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (39244)12/17/2009 9:29:15 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
That Health-Care Tax Pledge
The health-care bills are loaded with taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.
DECEMBER 17, 2009.

'If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime." So spoke Barack Obama at his first address to Congress in February. We're about to find out if the President cares about that promise as much he does passing a health-care bill.

Congressional Democrats have loaded up their health bills with provisions raising taxes on the middle-class by stacks and stacks of dimes. And Senate Democrats on Tuesday made clear they won't be bound by the President's vow; 54 voted to kill Idaho Republican Mike Crapo's amendment to strip the bill of taxes on families earning less than $250,000 and individuals earning less than $200,000.

Those tax hits include a mandate of up to $750 a year for Americans who fail to purchase health insurance; new levies on small businesses (many of which file individual tax returns) that don't offer health care to employees; new tax penalties on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts; and higher taxes on medical spending, including restrictions on medical itemized deductions, as well as taxes on cosmetic surgery. A Senate Finance Committee minority staff report finds that by 2019 more than 42 million individuals and families—or 25% of all tax returns under $200,000—will on average see their taxes go up because of the Senate bill. And that's after government subsidies.

This profusion of tax hikes is central to the Democratic fiction that the Senate bill is budget neutral. And because many Senate Democrats are cool to the House proposal to fund legislation with a surtax on the "wealthy," many of these middle-tax hikes will likely remain in final legislation. Yet President Obama is embracing the bill.

Democrats are instead trying to claim that some taxes really aren't taxes. The President in September engaged in a debate with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, with the President arguing that the individual mandate isn't a tax since it is for the good of America. Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow says increasing the amount of medical expenses a person must accumulate before deducting them also isn't a tax because "most Americans" don't itemize. Except the millions of middle-class Americans who do. Democrats have argued their restrictions on health savings accounts simply close "tax loopholes" and therefore also aren't new taxes.

Americans who will be paying more to the IRS can be trusted to know the difference. In April, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the President's tax promise applied to health care. He replied: "The statement didn't come with caveats." On the evidence in December, it did.

online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (39244)12/27/2009 10:44:39 PM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Spirit of America in Afghanistan
Ordinary citizens can contribute to our victory.
DECEMBER 27, 2009, 7:46 P.M. ET.

By JIM HAKE
In 2003, Sgt. First Class Jay Smith and his Army Special Forces team were based in Orgun-e, Afghanistan and were taking regular rocket fire from al Qaeda fighters. But Sgt. Smith and his men were armed with an effective counterweapon—gifts of school supplies and sports gear for children, and clothing, shoes and blankets for nearby families, all provided by American donors.

After receiving these items, the grateful villagers reciprocated by forming a night-watch patrol to protect our soldiers. Good relations with locals helped save American lives. I've witnessed this success on the front lines, aided by support from home, repeated many times since Sgt. Smith.

Accordingly, when President Barack Obama presented his plan for Afghanistan earlier this month he left out one critical element: the American people. Our initiative, resourcefulness and goodwill are incredibly powerful. In fact, the tangible support of the American people can make the difference between success and failure in Afghanistan.

Our troops in Afghanistan are engaged in counterinsurgency, a type of war that depends on winning over the local people. Marine Gen. James Mattis, commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command (which supports ongoing military operations and helps shape military forces for future conflicts), has said that, "One way we create the necessary credibility among the people and dissuade them from supporting our enemies is to show them hope of a better future." This is where the American people can play an indispensable role.

For the past six years, Spirit of America, the group I head, has supported our troops' humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. With donations from American citizens and businesses, we have provided sewing machines, medical supplies, tools, shoes, blankets, toys and more—all at the request of our troops for the benefit of local people.

Other organizations have also given Americans a chance to help the troops. Operation International Children, Soldiers' Angels, and Operation Gratitude, to name a few, have provided a link between the troops on the battlefield and Americans at home.

Most of Spirit of America's recent work has been in support of Marines in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, the scene of fierce fighting and the destination for 10,000 additional Marines who will be deployed in 2010.

The experience of the First Battalion, Fifth Marines (the "1/5"), which is already in Helmand Province, is instructive. These Marines live in austere conditions. They sleep on the ground, wash themselves and their clothes in canals, and are embedded with the villagers.

Mike Kuiper, a first lieutenant with the 1/5, asked Spirit of America for solar-powered radios, gear for local Afghan police, school supplies, tools and sports equipment. He and others are finding that a simple $18 radio helps the Marines counter Taliban propaganda and open remote villages to ideas and information that supplant fear with hope.

This is one reason why the counterinsurgency approach of the 1/5 Marines is leading to the defeat of Taliban fighters and is winning the trust of local residents.

Lt. Kuiper told me the support provided by the American people "is vital in convincing the [Afghan] people that we are not enemies of Afghanistan, but friends. This is the way we will win this war."

Gen. Mattis has said that our "direct support to build the hopes of the people is often as important as a resupply of ammunition."

The key to this humanitarian "ammunition" is to provide it at the local level, when and where it is needed. To do that you need a network that is fast and flexible, which is not the strength of large bureaucracies. However, it is a perfect match for Americans who want to help.

In Afghanistan, there is a meaningful way for every American to help, regardless of our political views. There are requests every day from our troops for things that will help them succeed and come home sooner and safer. Our servicemen and women need our help. We can provide the direct support they require and provide it on a scale that makes the difference. Now is the time to do it.

Mr. Hake is founder and CEO of Spirit of America (www.spiritofamerica.net) and the author of "101 Ways to Help the Cause in Afghanistan" (Spirit of America, 2009).

online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (39244)1/9/2010 9:29:00 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
U.S. Shifts Iran Focus to Support Opposition
JANUARY 9, 2010.

By JAY SOLOMON
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is increasingly questioning the long-term stability of Tehran's government and moving to find ways to support Iran's opposition "Green Movement," said senior U.S. officials.

The White House is crafting new financial sanctions specifically designed to punish the Iranian entities and individuals most directly involved in the crackdown on Iran's dissident forces, said the U.S. officials, rather than just those involved in Iran's nuclear program.

U.S. Treasury Department strategists already have been focusing on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has emerged as the economic and military power behind Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In recent weeks, senior Green Movement figures -- who have been speaking at major Washington think tanks -- have made up a list of IRGC-related companies they suggest targeting, which has been forwarded to the Obama administration by third parties.

Names on the list include Iran's largest telecommunications provider, Telecommunication Company of Iran, which is majority-owned by the IRGC, and the Iranian Aluminum Co. A U.S. official involved in Iran said the administration wouldn't comment on whether it was acting on the information.

American diplomats, meanwhile, have begun drawing comparisons in public between Iran's current political turmoil and the events that led up to the 1979 overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi.

"In my opinion there are many similarities," the State Department's chief Iran specialist, John Limbert, told Iran-based listeners this week over U.S. government-run Radio Farda. "I think it's very hard for the government to decide how to react to the legitimate and lawful demands of the people."

Since the opposition movement's demonstrations recently peaked after the death of reformist Islamic cleric Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, a number of Iran scholars in the U.S. said they have been contacted by senior administration officials eager to understand if the Iranian unrest suggested a greater threat to Tehran's government than originally understood.

The tone has changed in the conversation," said one scholar who discussed Iran with senior U.S. officials. "There's realization now that this unrest really matters."

In a signal of the White House's increased attention to Iran's political upheaval, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered over coffee at the State Department this week with four leading Iran scholars and mapped out the current dynamics, said U.S. officials. One issue explored was how the U.S. should respond if Tehran suddenly expressed a desire to reach a compromise on the nuclear issue. Mrs. Clinton asked whether the U.S. could reach a pact without crippling the prospects for the Green Movement.

U.S. allies are mixed in their response to the new focus. One senior Arab official said he told State Department officials this week they were deluded if they though Iran was close to experiencing a revolution reminiscent of the Shah's overthrow. "The IRGC has its hands on the Iranian people," the official said.

Israel, which faces the greatest security threat from Iran, says only widespread sanctions will effectively upend Tehran's current political leadership. "Many Israeli experts have concluded that expansive sanctions will widen the schisms between the Iranian government and its people," said Israel's ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren.

Senior U.S. officials stressed in interviews this week that President Barack Obama isn't moving toward seeking a regime change as its policy for Iran. Rather, these officials said, Washington remains committed to a dual-track approach of pursuing dialogue aimed at ending Iran's nuclear program while applying increasing financial pressure if the talks fail.

Both the Obama administration and the Iranian dissidents have been wary of any direct contacts, due to fears such meetings could provide ammunition for Tehran. The regime and its supporters continue to put harsh pressure on the Green Movement; on Friday, progovernment demonstrators shot at a car carrying a leading opposition figure, Mahdi Karroubi. He escaped without harm, his Web site reported later.

Still, the White House's re-evaluation of the Green Movement marks a significant evolution of Mr. Obama's Iran policy since demonstrators began openly challenging President Ahmadinejad's re-election in June, said diplomats and analysts.

"The Green Movement has demonstrated more staying power than perhaps some have anticipated," said a senior U.S. official. "The regime is internally losing its legitimacy, which is of its own doing."

The White House initially displayed caution in lending any vocal support to Iranian protesters, as many U.S. and European officials believed Tehran's security forces would quickly suppress any wide-scale dissent. U.S. officials repeatedly stressed over the summer that the U.S. was prioritizing efforts to negotiate with Iran on its nuclear program over any rapid push for democratic change.

The U.S. response was so timid that some Iranian protesters openly challenged Mr. Obama. "Obama, Obama -- either with us, or with them!" Tehran demonstrators were recorded chanting in November.

U.S. officials say that the White House's policy has shifted, in part, due to the surprising resilience of the Green Movement in the face of the pervasive crackdown.

The Obama administration has increasingly voiced support for human rights in Iran as the demonstrations have continued. Mr. Obama used his Nobel Prize acceptance speech last month to forcefully call for the respect of human rights and civil liberties.

U.S. officials cite the White House's public mourning of Mr. Montazeri's death as perhaps the pivotal step in trying to forge common cause with the opposition.

"Do we expect the current government to be overthrown? I wouldn't say that at the current time," said a senior State Department official. "But a crack can certainly grow over time."

Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A7
online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (39244)4/30/2010 9:19:12 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
How Obama could lose Arizona immigration battle
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
April 30, 2010


We know one thing for sure about the fight over Arizona's new immigration law. Civil-rights groups will file a lawsuit trying to kill the law and will ask a federal judge to issue an injunction to keep it from taking effect as scheduled this summer. What we don't know is how those proceedings will be affected by the Obama Justice Department, which is contemplating the highly unusual step of filing its own suit against the state of Arizona. Also unknown is the influence of President Obama himself, who has gone out of his way to raise questions -- some of them strikingly uninformed -- about the law.



The drafters of the law knew the lawsuit was coming; a lawsuit is always coming when a state tries to enforce the nation's immigration laws. What the drafters didn't expect was Obama's aggressive and personal role in trying to undermine the new measure.

"You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona ..." the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, "suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed." On the same day, Attorney General Eric Holder said he was considering a court challenge.

"The practice of the Justice Department in the past with states involving immigration has been to let the courts settle it and not weigh in as a party," says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law. Having Justice intervene, Kobach and other experts say, would be extraordinary.

The problem for Obama and Holder is that the people behind the new law have been through this before -- and won. Arizona is three-for-three in defending its immigration measures. In 2008, the state successfully defended its employer-sanctions law, which made it a state crime to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant. Facing some of the same groups that are now planning to challenge the new law, Arizona prevailed both in federal district court and at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's most liberal federal appeals court.

In federal court in 2005, Arizona successfully defended Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship for voting and also restricted benefits to illegals. And in 2006, officials won a state-court challenge to Arizona's human smuggling law.

The arguments that liberal groups make against the new law are similar to those made in the past. Foremost among them is the claim that only the federal government can handle immigration matters, and thus the Arizona measure pre-empts federal law.

Lawmakers thought of that ahead of time. "This law was carefully drafted to avoid any legal challenge on pre-emption in two ways," explains Kobach. "One, it perfectly mirrors federal law. Courts usually ask whether a state law is in conflict with federal law, and this law is in perfect harmony with federal law.

"Two, the new law requires local law enforcement officers not to make their own judgment about a person's immigration status but to rely on the federal government," Kobach continues. Any officer who reasonably suspects a person is illegal is required to check with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "As long as the state or city is relying on the federal government to determine immigration status, that will protect against a pre-emption challenge," says Kobach.

But what if the Obama administration argues that the law is a burden on the federal government? Or refuses to assist Arizona in determining a person's legality? The drafters thought of that, too. There's a federal statute -- 8 USC 1373, passed during the Clinton years -- requiring the feds to verify a person's immigration status any time a state or local official asks for it. The federal government cannot deny assistance to Arizona without breaking the law itself.

Given all that, Obama and Holder will have a hard time stopping this law. Their best hope is that a judge might be swayed by the political storm that has erupted, mostly on the left, by opponents raising the specter of fascism, Nazism, and a police state in Arizona.

That was one thing the drafters didn't expect. As they see it, the old employer verification law was broader in scope and more serious in effect than the new law, and it didn't set off this kind of national controversy. That tells Kris Kobach one thing about the current battle: "It's more about the politics of 2010 than it is about this particular law."

Byron York, the Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.

washingtonexaminer.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (39244)11/10/2010 8:22:17 PM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
John Kennedy Would Be a Conservative Today
By Burt Prelutsky
Sunday, November 7, 2010

I harbor no doubts that Kennedy would have joined me here on the right if he had lived. Liberals will read that sentence and conclude that if it's true, it's only because he would be 93 years old, and they would attribute it to dementia. But Kennedy, unlike, say, Hubert Humphrey wasn't a knee-jerk left-winger. He was anti-Communist, he favored a strong military and he believed in lower taxes.

Kennedy, in arguing for lower taxes, observed that a rising tide lifts all boats. Of course if you mention rising tides to liberals, they all panic, assuming it's that darn global warming melting the icebergs, and, like a flock of Chicken Littles, they begin to feel the ocean lapping at their ankles.

Unlike the Democrats today, Kennedy never pretended he was poor or even middle class; he let us know he was upper crust. And if you doubted it for a second, he'd put Jackie on display with her very expensive designer fashions. Today, kazillionaire politicians like Boxer, Feinstein, Bloomberg, Kerry, Clinton, and even a schmuck named Rockefeller, want us to believe they're just a bunch of regular folks who carry their lunch in a paper bag and shop at Walmart.

Speaking of rich people, I saw a list recently that listed the dead people who had made the most money during the past year. Michael Jackson pulled down $250 million; Elvis Presley, $60 million; Charles ("Peanuts") Shultz, $33 million; and Stieg Larsson, the Swedish novelist, $15 million. I assume the only thing that kept Harry Reid off the list was that he took in less than $15 million.

But it's not just the very wealthy libs that Kennedy would despise. He would also be embarrassed by a horse's patootie named Jim Moran, who, while running for Congress in Virginia, opined that he didn't regard military duty as a public service. The reason he said such a stupid thing was because his opponent, Patrick Murray, a retired colonel, had served 24 years in the U.S. Army. If Col. Murray had not had a military background, I'm pretty sure Moran would have chided him for having spent his time working with Virginia charities and officiating at PTA meetings when he should have been defending his country. I suspect we all have a pretty good idea what Jack Kennedy, Navy veteran of World War II, would have said about a punk like Moran.

While I have no way of being certain, I am confident that Kennedy would have shared my low opinion of the community organizer who now sits in the chair he once occupied in the Oval Office. For openers, Kennedy was an athlete who, even with a bad back, knew how to throw a spiral pass. He would have blanched at the sight of Obama throwing out the first pitch at the All Star Game. One can almost hear Kennedy turn to brother Bobby, chuckle, and say, "He throws just like Jackie."

But, most of all, Kennedy would have been disgusted by the race and class warfare that Obama promotes. I believe Kennedy would have viewed the Obama administration as one long act of revenge and retribution against white Americans.

Just recently, Obama, addressing a rally of leftist lunkheads, said, "We are driving and Republicans can come along, but they have to sit in the back of the car."

The middle class, he adds, is sitting up front with him. Does that mean that he doesn't believe there are any Republicans in the middle class? Well, considering the unemployment rate, I'm sure there are a lot fewer than there were before he took office, but surely there must be some.

Also, would a white politician, even a white Democrat, get away with telling a group of Americans they have to sit in the back of the car? Doesn't that remind people of the bad old days when a certain group of Americans had to sit in the back of the bus?

It also seems ironic that with Obama driving the car, it's like he's chauffeuring us Republicans. Not exactly the image he was aiming for. On top of that, if he's up front and driving and we conservatives are in the back, that leaves the Democrats in what is commonly known as the suicide seat.

Furthermore, Obama shows his true colors when he attacks Arizona, a state with relatively few blacks, and calls on other nations to join him in condemning it for human rights violations; and when he directs his attorney general not to prosecute cases in which blacks intimidate white voters; and when he says that the problem with the Constitution and even the Civil Rights Movement was that they didn't deal with the redistribution of wealth; and when he continues to misquote the Pledge of Allegiance and the Declaration of Independence, so as not to mention "under God" or "our Creator."

Isn't it the least bit odd that he wants to go to war with Arizona, and yet join with Ahmadinejad in a chorus of "Kumbaya"? I'm almost positive that John Kennedy would have thought so. In fact, if he'd lived to see this day, I am confident he would have said, "This jerk is even a worse president than Teddy would have been."

Which leaves us with just one last question:

(a) Is Obama simply incompetent or does he really hate America?
(b) Is he a Socialist?
(c) Is he a racist?
(d) Is he an arrogant nincompoop?
(e) All of the above?

patriotpost.us